Elizabeth Line / Crossrail Updates.

[billbedford]

42 minutes ago, caradoc said:

For me the major failing of Crossrail (apart from the cost and time overruns !) is the decision to hand it to TfL and therefore operate it as a 'Tube' line. It should instead form part of the national network, as with Thameslink, which provides long distance through services from places such as Bedford, Peterborough, Cambridge and Brighton. Crossrail could have performed a similar function with trains from, for example Oxford (assuming it is ever electrified), Swindon and Newbury to Ipswich, Southend and Ramsgate; Imagine the connectional possibilities between Thameslink and Crossrail at Farringdon ! Instead Crossrail will never be more than an over-extended Tube line, and then with trains not suitable for even its limited direct journeys. What an opportunity wasted.

 

 

Well...

 

There's someone who has never been on the Central Line in the rush hour.

 

 

[royaloak]

On 25/08/2019 at 11:34, St. Simon said:

Hi,

 

The other thing is that the December 2019 timetable change is being driven by GWR rather than Crossrail, so it's likely that Crossrail are having to fit around GWR using the paths that Network Rail have given them.

 

Simon

Crossrail wanted sole use of the relief lines from Maidenhead to Paddington, and I do mean sole use, they were told exactly what they could do with that idea and I get the feeling they have deliberately effed up the connections for those outside their primary area, but I am a cynical old 'B' so what do I know.

Edited September 24, 2019 by royaloak

[The Stationmaster]

1 hour ago, DY444 said:

 

A friend of mine lives in Maidenhead and commutes to Canary Wharf daily.  Ideal candidate for Crossrail you'd think but not a bit of it.  She tried out a 345 down to Hayes and said there was no way she was going all the way to London and back every day "sitting sideways on a big tube train".  She intends to continue to change at Paddington or possibly Ealing Broadway if the times suit.  There are already a number of reports of passengers at Hayes and stations inwards letting 345s go and waiting for 387s instead.

 

If this is in anyway indicative and passenger resistance to travelling outer suburban distances on 345s does become a big issue then I think there is a possibility it will end up being rethought.  

This is a common reaction from what I have heard.  A member of the committee of our Branch User Group carried out an analysis of journey times an d even using some older - far more optimistic - journey times from Crossrail he showed that for a substantial number of journeys from Maidenhead and west thereof the best journey times for commuters would be achieved by changing to Crossrail at Paddington.  As far as what he knew of commuters from our branch he showed conclusively that Crossrail would deliver no benefits in journey time apart from those who currently use the Central line and some of those who use the Bakerloo Line.

[Zomboid]

It's something of a broken record, but the fact remains that crossrail makes perfect sense as a tube line. Shenfield and Abbey Wood to Heathrow & Greenford would be pretty good. Replacing all the stoppers as far out as Reading... Not so much.

[caradoc]

3 hours ago, billbedford said:

 

Well...

 

There's someone who has never been on the Central Line in the rush hour.

 

 

 

And how do you know that ? Something of a sweeping assumption !

[phil-b259]

11 hours ago, caradoc said:

For me the major failing of Crossrail (apart from the cost and time overruns !) is the decision to hand it to TfL and therefore operate it as a 'Tube' line. It should instead form part of the national network, as with Thameslink, which provides long distance through services from places such as Bedford, Peterborough, Cambridge and Brighton. Crossrail could have performed a similar function with trains from, for example Oxford (assuming it is ever electrified), Swindon and Newbury to Ipswich, Southend and Ramsgate; Imagine the connectional possibilities between Thameslink and Crossrail at Farringdon ! Instead Crossrail will never be more than an over-extended Tube line, and then with trains not suitable for even its limited direct journeys. What an opportunity wasted.

 

 

Actually Thameslink is a very bad idea and not something to be emulated.

 

Having services running out to the likes Peterborough and Brighton but also having to deal with underground style crush loadings through the core means the 700s are jack of all trades but masters of none! It also greatly increases the chance of performance pollution as capacity sapping slow to fast line movements have to take place and delays at key bottlenecks like Windmil Bridge junction have the potental to screw up services as far away as Edinburgh!

 

In an ideal world Thameslink would go no further than Gatwick, Luton Stevenage and Sevenoaks with the slots used by the current long distance Thameslink services used to link stations in south London instead. That would allow a 'metro' layout without the need to have a basic 1st class section for example, while Brighton commuters could have popper long distance interior layouts (377s)

 

Unfortunately what with St Pancras having its capacity to handle large quantities of MML services destroyed by the construction of the Eurostar terminal, Kings Cross being hemmed in by development / having restricted platform lengths (in the suburban side) and Commuters from Bedford / Brighton having long established services through the core - it was impossible to do anything other than what we have got.

 

That said Crossrail has indeed gone too far the other way, Reading could have been balanced out by Southend in the East while money should have been found to take services beyond Abbey Wood to Dartford / Gravesend as well as north west to Aylesbury as originally intended.

 

However when complaining about Crossrails limited scope, it should be remembered that if it wasn't for TfL then the entire thing would definitely have been canned by George Osborne as an 'Austerity measure' after the 2008 banking crash and subsequent recession. The reason he couldn't was the fact that by law, HM Treasury would have had to pay back millions of pounds to business and London householders who had been forced to pay a extra 'Crossral levy' to help fund the scheme - on top of all the other taxes I should add.

 

 

 

 

 

[jim.snowdon]

I'd agree with Phil-b's points about Thameslink, but from what I recall of the proposed Crossrail service pattern it is being run rather differently, with no end to end services, just basically Shenfield - Paddington/Heathrow and Reading - Abbey Wood. Even then, whilst Shenfield was the long accepted limit of the Great Eastern suburban service, Reading is a long way beyond the Great Western's suburban territory, which for most purposes ended at Slough, or arguably Maidenhead.

 

Jim

[caradoc]

I also agree with Phil-b259; To a certain extent, and as a railway operator. My role as a Controller involved managing 'through' services such as those on the Argyle Line in Glasgow, and more recently the Edinburgh/Milngavie and Helensburgh via Bathgate route. While not really comparable to the service frequency and loadings of Thameslink (although the two routes mentioned combine with others to give a train every two minutes on the Finnieston/Hyndland section, with a flat junction at one end !), any disruption at one end of a route would rapidly spread to areas far away.

 

However what many passengers want is a direct train from their origin to their destination, which Thameslink provides; Whereas Crossrail will provide far less than its potential. I also fully agree with Stationmaster that the awful seating arrangement of Class 345, and the lack of toilets, will put passengers off using them when an alternative exists.

 

Finally, regarding my alleged non-understanding of Central Line rush-hour conditions, I was not suggesting that the examples I gave would be the only trains using Crossrail, merely that they should have been considered as part of the service pattern.

 

 

[The Stationmaster]

Speaking as a retired (from paid employment) railway operator (including Regional level 'On Call' responsibility) and train planner with considerable experience of the GWML over quite a long period I would be surprised if the full intensity of the proposed Crossrail service on that section of its route will ever consistently achieve better than 90% within RT- 10 late and not much better than c.80% Right Time.  The reason being that it is already a heavily used mixed traffic route with an increasing frequency of long distance services plus outer Thames/Kennet Valley semi-fasts plus a substantial number of freight trains running during daylight hours (and now in some cases 'hobbled' by a reduced line speed for freights east of Reading).

 

Thus there is a potential for things to go awry - with train running potentially being disrupted by events as far away as Cornwall or deep in South & West Wales or even right up into the Birmingham area if freight traffic is disrupted or blocked between Reading and the West Midlands and has to be diverted via Acton and the WCML.   On good days everything will work reasonably well but all  you need is a cracked rail on any rinning line east of Hayes resulting in either a severe restriction of speed or closure pending examination/repair and major problems will occur with mass cancellations and the all stations trains would, logically, be the first to be taken out or severely curtailed in order to make best use of the remaining line capacity.  Similarly even planned engineering work at weekends will inevitably mean service thinning and again logically the ones that will be most severely pruned will be all stations trains.

 

Mind you I suppose there could well be a situation where logical use of available capacity might - for 'political' reasons - not necessarily be the consequence of service reduction\, which could result in an even bigger mess of a reduced timetable.  The service intensity now proposed for Crossrail east of West Drayton during the peaks in particular would simply not have been entertained in the past and in fact back in the early '90s there were even proposals for six tracking out as far as Airport Junction - for lower overall intensity of service than is nowadays proposed for Crossrail and in GWR's December timetable.  The difference then I suppose was that experienced operators took the view that reliability was required in any service enhancement proposal if it was to work efficiently.

 

Part from the unsuitability of the trains for longer distance working Crossrail will inevitably suffer from the 'two main line routes joined up' syndrome and its impact on reliability.  Fortunately it will at least be on its own railway east of the central section which will in some resects help reliability,  But west of the central section it will be out to play on the big boys' railway which is a very different kettle of fish from the Overground.    TfL were in some respects sensible to ask for a dedicated pair of tracks on the western side - the only problem is that they should have built them and not relied on mixing it with the other route users and the inevitable consequences of running over a route which needed 4 tracks carry what it was carrying before Crossrail came along.  Just as well there area couple of turnround sidings west of Paddington Crossrail station and that there's a nice big bolt hole at Old Oak Common - there will be times when they are needed.

 

Incidentally I don't wish train operation problems on the railway but the simple fact of life is that they happen in even the best regulated of circles.  According to an article in 'Modern Railways' since it has been brought into use there have been overhead line damage incidents on the GWML which have cost  £5.5 million to rectify.   I know they haven't all been east of Reading and I know the causes have been various and I know a more comprehensive system of inspection is being used to address problems before that happen.  But I doubt if any of that will stop what affected me on a recent journey when our train was used to examine the overhead on an adjacent line and found 'an object' on the catenary.  And there are an awful lot of trees on the lineside nowadays ready to shed leaves and branches with some rapidly regrowing where the were felled only a couple of years back.

[Ron Ron Ron]

TFL RAIL TO OPERATE SERVICES TO READING FROM 15 DECEMBER

 

http://www.crossrail.co.uk/news/articles/tfl-rail-to-operate-services-to-reading-from-15-december#

 

 

 

 

.

[The Stationmaster]

12 hours ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

TFL RAIL TO OPERATE SERVICES TO READING FROM 15 DECEMBER

 

http://www.crossrail.co.uk/news/articles/tfl-rail-to-operate-services-to-reading-from-15-december#

 

 

 

 

.

Rather disingenuous in places although that should hardly come as a surprise in a PR handout.  Quite how the contactless ticketing will work must be open to some interesting questions if GWR and TfL are going to charge different fares for the same journey - that certainly wasn't GWR's take on things last month when, as I posted back then, they said revenue split would be dealt with under Orcats.  That leaves me wondering quite how Freedom Pass holders would be accounted for; I can foresee some awkward words being exchanged if a Freedom Pass holder is picked up by a Revenue Inspector on a GWR train.   Incidentally Reading has been set up for complete contactless for some months past and, as I found out on Monday, it now has 100% functionality for all types of National Rail ticket contactless use.  GWR said last month that they were looking to introduce wider contactless coverage in the New Year which aligns with TfL's statement and their rep confirmed that you only need to 'tap in'(or 'out') once for your journey which is a way of taking account of the fact that you will never be able to 'tap in' at various stations.

 

The fact that Oyster Cards will not be valid beyond West Drayton has, I suspect, little to do with the age of the technology (which in my experience always seems to work well) and a lot more to do with TfL and GWR being unable to reach agreement about how things would work particularly at places such as Slough, Maidenhead, Twyford and Reading.

 

As I wouId have expected TfL has not mentioned that GWR will continue to operate two trains per hour off-peak between Reading and Paddington (usually running through to/from Didcot)  and that the GWR trains will be the ones that make the branchline connections to/from London.  As the generally poor impact on journey times is showing TfL - hardly surprisingly - has little interest in connections off the branches towards Reading or having trains which allow sensible onward connections from Reading; quite a number of which are broken from the December timetable change with a detrimental impact on overall journey times.    Also the bit about 4 XR trains per hour in the peak is incorrect as far as Reading and Twyford are concerned.  Only one of the morning peak hours has 4 Up XR trains (and that is not the busiest of the Up peak hours), the other peak hours have either 2 or 3 Up  XR trains.  Incidentally the two busiest Up Morning peak hours at Twyford currently have 8 trains per hour while there are 5 per hour in the Down direction. That will change to totals of 8 and 9 per hour Up from December 16,  with 5 GWR Up trains in both hours, i.e. GWR remains the predominant operator.

 

The bit about stations being staffed all the time, and by implication every day, sounds to me as if it only refers to TfL manned stations - unless GWR are busily recruiting additional staff for Twyford and all the barrier lines at Reading.   GWR didn't mention this when they spoke to our Branch User Group back in August and in fact a discussion about the lifts being our of use at Twyford at various times was very much related to the fact that the station is not staffed throughout the period of train services running.  Nothing was said about increasing staff hours of coverage as a way of mitigating the problem but on the contrary a lot was said about ensuring the reliability of the remote communications links (to the lifts) at times when the station is unstaffed.

 

Work is clearly in hand at many stations west of West Drayton installing camera structures  for DOO operation of Class 345 trains but no monitors had appeared last week when I travelled to/from London.  Does anybody know if the camera information is transmitted to monitors in the driving cab as some very large equipment cupboards have appeared at various stations which would seem to be far bigger than is required for a normal camera/platform mounted monitor system?  Platform mounted monitors would have to be set well back at many stations to avoid obscuring signals.

[Ron Ron Ron]

2 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

......Also the bit about 4 XR trains per hour in the peak is incorrect as far as Reading and Twyford are concerned.  

Only one of the morning peak hours has 4 Up XR trains (and that is not the busiest of the Up peak hours), the other peak hours have either 2 or 3 Up  XR trains.  

 

Incidentally the two busiest Up Morning peak hours at Twyford currently have 8 trains per hour while there are 5 per hour in the Down direction. That will change to totals of 8 and 9 per hour Up from December 16,  with 5 GWR Up trains in both hours, i.e. GWR remains the predominant operator.....

 

Just having looked at the December timetable (M-F) .....

 

Up trains from both RDG & TWY to PAD

 

Between 0600 - 0700  = 3 XR trains 

Between 0700 - 0800. = 4 XR trains 

Between 0800 - 0900. = 4 XR trains 

Between 0900 - 1000. = 3 XR trains 

 

From TWY to PAD

 

Between 0600 - 0700  = 3 GWR trains 

Between 0700 - 0800. = 4 GWR trains 

Between 0800 - 0900. = 4 GWR trains 

Between 0900 - 1000. = 2 GWR trains 

 

 

.

[adb968008]

On 25/09/2019 at 01:02, phil-b259 said:

 

Actually Thameslink is a very bad idea and not something to be emulated.

 

Having services running out to the likes Peterborough and Brighton but also having to deal with underground style crush loadings through the core means the 700s are jack of all trades but masters of none! It also greatly increases the chance of performance pollution as capacity sapping slow to fast line movements have to take place and delays at key bottlenecks like Windmil Bridge junction have the potental to screw up services as far away as Edinburgh!

 

In an ideal world Thameslink would go no further than Gatwick, Luton Stevenage and Sevenoaks with the slots used by the current long distance Thameslink services used to link stations in south London instead.

Not sure passengers agree with that though.

 

Being able to travel on one train, rather than changing trains is always preferable.

 

Thameslink is the only train that actually allows it, and still serve cross central London... true when they arrive into London Bridge, Blackfriars and at St Pancras they are bulging from the seams, but only 1/2 get off, and another 1/2 get on, the rest dissipate across the central section.

 

Everytime the tunnel is closed, there’s loads of moans on Twitter at passengers having to change at Blackfriars & St Pancras.

 

remember railways are run for the passengers convenience, not the network designers convenience, which is why in the last few years weve seen more flyovers, fly unders, like south of LBG, Acton and Letchworth lines, to accommodate needs of passengers, rather than ease of engineers & planners, something BR would have never done.

 

The big miss on Crossrail is that it doesn’t facilitate HS2 services running through it, rather than sticking 21st century anarchistic Victorian palaces for terminuses.. Berlin, Amsterdam, Paris even good old Liverpool, Birmingham and now Manchester all manage thru city services without problems and onto the burbs and beyond.

Edited September 27, 2019 by adb968008

[phil-b259]

12 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

Not sure passengers agree with that though.

 

Being able to travel on one train, rather than changing trains is always preferable.

 

Thameslink is the only train that actually allows it, and still serve cross central London... true when they arrive into London Bridge, Blackfriars and at St Pancras they are bulging from the seams, but only 1/2 get off, and another 1/2 get on, the rest dissipate across the central section.

 

Everytime the tunnel is closed, there’s loads of moans on Twitter at passengers having to change at Blackfriars & St Pancras.

 

remember railways are run for the passengers convenience, not the network designers convenience, which is why in the last few years weve seen more flyovers, fly unders, like south of LBG, Acton and Letchworth lines, to accommodate needs of passengers, rather than ease of engineers & planners, something BR would have never done.

 

The big miss on Crossrail is that it doesn’t facilitate HS2 services running through it, rather than sticking 21st century anarchistic Victorian palaces for terminuses.. Berlin, Amsterdam, Paris even good old Liverpool, Birmingham and now Manchester all manage thru city services without problems and onto the burbs and beyond.

 

One of the big problems with discussing Thameslink is the fact it has been in existence for  30 years now - and a whole generation of commuters have got used to the opportunities it provides.

 

Put it this way, were trains from Brighton still terminating at London Bridge / and trains from Bedford still terminating at St Pancras / Moorgate then commuters on said services wouldn’t know they were missing out so to speak.

 

Crossrail deliberately avoided having things like toilets, first class, lots of internal portions etc (all of which longer distance travellers appreciate) so they could pack as many commuters in as possible. Thameslink simply cannot come close to Crossrail in capacity stakes due to all the extra stuff it’s trains have to come with as a direct result of them running all the way to Peterborough, etc.

 

As for the infrastructure improvements you mention - they were not put in place simply to ‘improve’  passenger convenience, they were an engineering necessity.

 

Without the Bermondsey diveunder for example an enhanced  Thameslink timetable would decimate the amount of services that could run into Charing Cross, without the Acton diveunder Crossrail / GWR would be significantly restricted to allow freight to continue to service Acton yard.

[adb968008]

18 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

As for the infrastructure improvements you mention - they were not put in place simply to ‘improve’  passenger convenience, they were an engineering necessity.

They might be an engineering necessity, but who is using it ?

 

That’s the whole point of engineering.. to provide solutions to problems.

if it’s not for passenger convenience then who’s it ? - extra walls for graffiti artists, caverns for dealers to hide in, dens for squirrels to hide nuts in ?

 

its there to convey passenger services without congestion... something which “if we don’t care let them change trains”, mentality or to use your words

Quote

..still terminating at St Pancras / Moorgate then commuters on said services wouldn’t know they were missing out

We wouldn’t need as it could otherwise just terminate at London Bridge according to whether it originated from an LBSC or SECR origin route and let every passenger change trains forget how inconvenient it is...

 

One of the nice things of Oyster tracking etc, is that routes have been re-aligned (and passengers relocate to homes ) to serve need for volume passengers to originate at point A, and exit at B,C,D& E without changing..

 

Thameslink is a success story...a very big one, born due to listening... remember 30 years back ridership was falling and in terminal decline... it’s only reversed because the “service” is a service that’s convienient.. make it difficult they will do something else... just read Twitter when it goes bump to see what I mean.

 

Thats why Old Oak will fail.. it’s inconvienient, it’s got to offer value in terms of speed or comfort.. changing trains offers neither and so each change of mode increases chance of the passenger giving up and trying something else.

Edited September 27, 2019 by adb968008

[phil-b259]

5 hours ago, adb968008 said:

They might be an engineering necessity, but who is using it ?

 

That’s the whole point of engineering.. to provide solutions to problems.

if it’s not for passenger convenience then who’s it ? - extra walls for graffiti artists, caverns for dealers to hide in, dens for squirrels to hide nuts in ?

 

its there to convey passenger services without congestion... something which “if we don’t care let them change trains”, mentality or to use your words

We wouldn’t need as it could otherwise just terminate at London Bridge according to whether it originated from an LBSC or SECR origin route and let every passenger change trains forget how inconvenient it is...

 

One of the nice things of Oyster tracking etc, is that routes have been re-aligned (and passengers relocate to homes ) to serve need for volume passengers to originate at point A, and exit at B,C,D& E without changing..

 

Thameslink is a success story...a very big one, born due to listening... remember 30 years back ridership was falling and in terminal decline... it’s only reversed because the “service” is a service that’s convienient.. make it difficult they will do something else... just read Twitter when it goes bump to see what I mean.

 

Thats why Old Oak will fail.. it’s inconvienient, it’s got to offer value in terms of speed or comfort.. changing trains offers neither and so each change of mode increases chance of the passenger giving up and trying something else.

 

I fear you are missing the point.

 

Back in the mid to late 1980s Thameslink didn’t exist - like Crossrail it was a brand new venture and as such BR had the freedom to chose what services south of the river they wished to link with the MML. There were no passengers to be inconvenienced by the need to change trains - as that was what they had needed to do since before WW1!

 

There is also a common belief that a Thameslink designed from the outset as a way of providing direct trains to places north and south of London - when actually that’s a load of rubbish!

 

HM Treasuary and the DoT actually went so far as to say that they saw no need for through services so would not provide any cash - most of the money for getting the snow hill tunnel reopened initially actually came from the GLC (before it was abolished it was very keen Cross London services) and the City of London.

 

BR thus got creative......

 

BR realised they could use Thameslink as a way of procuring new stock to replace some of the Mk1 3rd rail EMU fleet, while also making inroads into the oldest 25KV EMU fleet by cascades involving displaced Mk2 and Mk3 types.

 

However to do this, BR needed to come up with a robust BCR figure to overcome a Treasury sceptics who saw no value in cross London services.

 

BR realised that if the new Thameslink service reached down to the Sussex Coast, then the higher fare revenue (as opposed to a scheme focusing on south London) would provide a much better BCR ratio.

 

BR also realised that by virtue of Thameslink trains not needing to ‘layover’ at Loddon termini, they would appear to have a far better rolling stock utilisation figure - something the Treasury would look favourably on as it ‘reduced waste / increased efficiency.

 

NOWHARE in the submission to the DoT did BR suggest that a Thameslink was being developed primarily to save folk changing trains to cross London - that was very much tread as an a minor side benefit not worth making a fuss over. 

 

BR was successful in their efforts and HM Treasuary duly authorised the construction of the 319s - and the core Bedford to Brighton route was born BUT     despite Thameslink success over the past 30 years it must not be forgotten the core route owed far more to BRs efforts to get round an anti-rail HM Treasuary / DoT than anything else. Had BR and the Government of the day been serious about promoting seemless Cross London travel then, as with Crossrail then Thameslink service de elopement could well have gone differently.

 

 

[adb968008]

Fascinating insight, and demonstrates the law of unintended consequences.

That BR built a tunnel to replace rolling stock, and accidentally find passengers want to ride the train.

 

However that was British Rail, so doesn’t surprise me.

 

 

The lessons learned since is the achievement,.. those unintended consequences, which today are intended.

 

To literally bring this back to topic, I noticed yesterday at Farringdon, the facade for the entrance to Crossrail has been removed at booking hall level, it still has a fence, but you can it’s starting to be revealed.

Edited September 28, 2019 by adb968008

[The Stationmaster]

21 hours ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

 

Just having looked at the December timetable (M-F) .....

 

Up trains from both RDG & TWY to PAD

 

Between 0600 - 0700  = 3 XR trains 

Between 0700 - 0800. = 4 XR trains 

Between 0800 - 0900. = 4 XR trains 

Between 0900 - 1000. = 3 XR trains 

 

From TWY to PAD

 

Between 0600 - 0700  = 3 GWR trains 

Between 0700 - 0800. = 4 GWR trains 

Between 0800 - 0900. = 4 GWR trains 

Between 0900 - 1000. = 2 GWR trains 

 

 

.

Interestingly that has altered from what was shown earlier in Real Time Trains where certain Reading starters in the peak were shown as GW but are now shown as  XR.  In fact going through much of the morning a considerable number of alterations have taken place including branch connections which previously existed in the December service being broken being broken.  I feel another, much nastier, letter to the local 'paper will be emerging very shortly.

[The Stationmaster]

4 hours ago, adb968008 said:

Fascinating insight, and demonstrates the law of unintended consequences.

That BR built a tunnel to replace rolling stock, and accidentally find passengers want to ride the train.

 

However that was British Rail, so doesn’t surprise me.

 

 

The lessons learned since is the achievement,.. those unintended consequences, which today are intended.

 

To literally bring this back to topic, I noticed yesterday at Farringdon, the facade for the entrance to Crossrail has been removed at booking hall level, it still has a fence, but you can it’s starting to be revealed.

The critical question about any cross-city etc service is how many people use said services to cross the city.  Taking Crossrail as an example even its timetable suggests that passengers are unlikely to use it to cross the city centre.  It is really predicated on taking passengers into, and out of the city centre and the rolling stock is very obviously designed for dealing with peak loads in the city centre where it will, very helpfully and usefully, relieve existing UndergrounD routes.   The big advantage of cross-city routes is that they reduce infrastructure demands at the city ends of individual routes and can offer utilisation improvements for rolling stock as well as potentially allowing more economical use of train crew.

 

Yes they do offer new journey opportunities but that depends entirely on passengers wishing to travel to teh places they serve.  Nobody but an idiot or the very occasional person with possible mobility issues will use Crossrail to travel from central London to Reading.  We  make occasional trips to/from Harwich and to be honest I would not even be inclined to use Crossrail to get to/from home but, with luggage, would still use a taxi between Paddington and Liverpool St in preference even tho' it will still mean me going slightly out of my way.

 

As far as Crossrail going to Reading, or even Maidenhead, is concerned it's really no more than a DfT/TfL financial exercise to relieve DfT of some costs and give Crossrail access to some revenue.  In reality it offers nothing better for a large percentage of the passengers on the western side who will have no option but to use it and its distinctly down market and much less amenable overgrown UndergrounD trains where absolutely no consideration at all has been given to passengers paying large amounts of money to travel on them over longer distances.

[phil-b259]

8 hours ago, adb968008 said:

Fascinating insight, and demonstrates the law of unintended consequences.

That BR built a tunnel to replace rolling stock, and accidentally find passengers want to ride the train.

 

However that was British Rail, so doesn’t surprise me.

 

 

The lessons learned since is the achievement,.. those unintended consequences, which today are intended.

 

To literally bring this back to topic, I noticed yesterday at Farringdon, the facade for the entrance to Crossrail has been removed at booking hall level, it still has a fence, but you can it’s starting to be revealed.

 

Firstly, please remember the financial straightjacket BR had to operate under in those days with HM Treasury and the DoT being very reluctant to sanction railway investment. In todays current climate where new trains seem to come with every franchise renewal its easy to forget just how much of a struggle it was for BR to prise cash out of Whitehall for rolling stock modernisation. As such BR actually deserves credit - not scorn for 'playing the system' when it came to Thameslink to try and get round the anti-rail Whitehall stance prevailing at the time.

 

Secondly, given Crossrail is basically an overgrown tube line - and does not come close to Thameslink in terms of the number of 'no change' journey opportunities, then I would contend that actually lessons have Not been learned as you put it.

 

In fact, just as with Thameslink the issue of obtaining funding to build the thing is a large part of the reason Crosrail has the service pattern it will when it opens.

 

As I highlighted, to get the initial Thameslink project up and running BR was effectively forced by the anti-rail HM Treasury and the DoT to include long distance commuting to get a good enough BCR and get permission to spend funds from the DfT.

 

To get Crossrail up and running it has been necessary to get TfL  London tax payers to agree to fund almost half the project cost through various extra levies, etc - which therefore means they have considerable clout to do what they want rather than what might be best for the national rail network. Yes using this funding method meant Crossrail survived the 2008 Austerity measures which could have killed it (just as the 1992 recession killed off BRs Thameslink 2000 plan) but at a cost of proper passenger on- train facilities and a wider number of destinations served.

 

Thus I would contend Crossrail has suffered from exactly the same basic problem that Thameslink did - neither scheme was implemented with the benefits of cross London passengers / reducing the number of changes being the main driver. Instead both schemes were designed to fit the priorities of the key financial players / external decision makers so they could go ahead. Consequently one has cast its net to wide while the other has shrunk back to a bare minimum - with the result that the trains and on board comfort for users of both is severely compromised and despite the two interchanging at Faringdon they don't compliment each other at all!

Edited September 28, 2019 by phil-b259

[phil-b259]

On 24/09/2019 at 13:44, billbedford said:

 

Well...

 

There's someone who has never been on the Central Line in the rush hour.

 

 

 

Which is why I advocated a 'medium distance' setup. It still provides a reasonable amount of cross London connectivity but at the same time allows the trains to be part metroised to facilitate big crowds in the central core.

 

For Crossrail I would set the limits as Reading / High Wycombe / Aylesbury in the west and Chelmsford / Southend / Gravesend in the east.

 

For Thameslink I would have set the northern limits as Luton and Letchworth in the north, with Three Bridges and Maidstone East in the south.

 

Obviously with infrastructure constraints and 30 years of commuters having got used to the current setup, Thameslink cannot now be curtailed - and the same will be true with Crossrail being expanded once it opens.

 

[DY444]

On 27/09/2019 at 11:41, The Stationmaster said:

 That leaves me wondering quite how Freedom Pass holders would be accounted for; I can foresee some awkward words being exchanged if a Freedom Pass holder is picked up by a Revenue Inspector on a GWR train. 

 

That has already happened albeit not actually on a GWR train.  There was a report recently about a Freedom Pass holder who was stopped by gate line staff at Paddington and given a penalty fare for using a Freedom Pass before 0930 having travelled on a TFL service from Ealing Broadway.  The Freedom Pass map shows this as valid but the latest update is that GWR are refusing to back down.  In my experience Paddington gate line staff have a very polarised (and frequently wrong) view of ticket validity so expect a lot more of this sort of thing.          

[DY444]

On 27/09/2019 at 23:43, adb968008 said:

Not sure passengers agree with that though.

 

Being able to travel on one train, rather than changing trains is always preferable.

 

Yes but throughout its existence TL has imported delays across London and made the service groups north and south of the Thames less reliable than they would otherwise have been.  Through trains are desirable but reliability trumps that in my view.  I was obliged to commute on TL from the south for many years and during the first couple of years of TL operation I kept a log of delay reasons.  Around 85% of all delays I experienced were due to traction changeover problems at Farringdon or infrastructure defects north of (what was) St. Paul's Thameslink.  The remainder were other train faults and infrastructure defects on the SR.  The reliability of our train service deteriorated markedly when TL opened compared to what it was when it was an internal SR service.  That isn't a coincidence.  Having your train in South London cancelled because of a points failure at Bedford when you're trying to get to work is very annoying.

Edited September 29, 2019 by DY444

[adb968008]

On 28/09/2019 at 15:37, The Stationmaster said:

The critical question about any cross-city etc service is how many people use said services to cross the city.  Taking Crossrail as an example even its timetable suggests that passengers are unlikely to use it to cross the city centre.  It

I humbly submit to you to try even squeezing onto a Thameslink at West Hampstead to Elephant & Castle or London Bridge in a rush hour...

here is an example what 1st class looks like (which is why its downgraded on this line)

 

 

 

this route is densely packed to absolute extremes..

And at least 50% of those are originating from points outside of Zone1/3 ...

 

It is rammed, daily to excess... of a mix of both long distance and cross city connecting passengers... indeed it is nearly a 50% mix at each station...

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/689701/thameslink-programme-baseline-evaluation-report.pdf

 

 

When farringdon opens to cross rail, it will become the defacto least hassle connecting route by rail from the South East to LHR..  going TL to XR will trump SE to LBG to Jubilee to Bakerloo to Hex or SE to Vic to Barkerloo to Hex, especially for slower travellers.

 

So TL will become even more overloaded.

 

The miss was not having a connecting spur from TL to XR at Farringdon to allow thru services to the South East.

 

One passenger preference for commuting, is to find the “end”    of the line to live, as generally its the only place to get a seat. This is the beauty of TL... its an Octopus of tentacles.. it gives lots of different options on both sides of London for the commuter to directly commute.

 

Those espousing short distance XR / TL should think they are undermining the HS2 argument, which is supposedly about happy commuters willingingly wanting to commute 250+ miles each way everyday, plus 2 changes of mode, 1 at either end to reach their destination/source.

 

Similarly making TL a purely Norwood Junction to West Hampstead shuttle will see its popularity wane and complaints soar, especially when connections are missed due to late arriving long distance trains. Late trains are fact of life, not a unique TL constraint.

 

People prefer direct trains.. not connections, but TL connections, due to its nearly every minute service thru the tunnels, ticks the boxes, as even if you miss your train, it still gives options either side of the capital, in addition to its many end points, thats why XR will dissapoint.

 

Edited May 9, 2021 by adb968008

[The Stationmaster]

36 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

I humbly submit to you to try even squeezing onto a Thameslink at West Hampstead to Elephant & Castle or London Bridge in a rush hour...

here is an example what 1st class looks like (which is why its downgraded on this line)

 

 

this route is densely packed to absolute extremes..

And at least 50% of those are originating from points outside of Zone1/3 ...

 

It is rammed, daily to excess... of a mix of both long distance and cross city connecting passengers... indeed it is nearly a 50% mix at each station...

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/689701/thameslink-programme-baseline-evaluation-report.pdf

 

 

When farringdon opens to cross rail, it will become the defacto least hassle connecting route by rail from the South East to LHR..  going TL to XR will trump SE to LBG to Jubilee to Bakerloo to Hex or SE to Vic to Barkerloo to Hex, especially for slower travellers.

 

So TL will become even more overloaded.

 

The miss was not having a connecting spur from TL to XR at Farringdon to allow thru services to the South East.

 

One passenger preference for commuting, is to find the “end”    of the line to live, as generally its the only place to get a seat. This is the beauty of TL... its an Octopus of tentacles.. it gives lots of different options on both sides of London for the commuter to directly commute.

 

Those espousing short distance XR / TL should think they are undermining the HS2 argument, which is supposedly about happy commuters willingingly wanting to commute 250+ miles each way everyday, plus 2 changes of mode, 1 at either end to reach their destination/source.

 

Similarly making TL a purely Norwood Junction to West Hampstead shuttle will see its popularity wane and complaints soar, especially when connections are missed due to late arriving long distance trains, which is a fact of life, not a unique TL constraint.

 

People prefer direct trains.. not connections, but TL connections, due to its nearly every minute service thru the tunnels, ticks the boxes, as even if you miss your train, it still gives options either side of the capital.

 

So exactly my point - what that does not address is the number of passengers from outside the central area who travel through to outside the central area on the other side of London.  And in fact the St Pancras percentages go some way to demonstrating my point because there TL is being used as a route out of London northwards.  Blackfriars equally shows the point in some respects because it has a fairly even split between people travelling north and those travelling south which suggest people commuting in from either side of London.  The key factors are how many travel through from one side to the other from roughly 10 miles or more further out from the central commuting destinations.

 

With Crossrail an interesting determinant will be the number of passengers westbound who get off a terminating train at Paddington and change to a service going beyond West Drayton - and that should be fairly straightforward data to capture.  the through running remains in my view more a matter of capital cost economy and operational simplicity than providing a useful service to passengers, particularly those travelling from longer distances whose travel patterns and comfort (certainly being the case here) will be disrupted to suit somebody else's situation.